Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

........The scenario you envision has actually played out in a western nation in recent memory. Why do you act like it's such a conundrum?

I think the evidence of this and other related threads shows Nessie being invested in the failure of any or all gun control in the USA. I haven't the first idea why.

__________________"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

It has been decided that automatic weapons in civilian hands is not a good idea. Laws have been passed such that the state and federal governments all over the USA have agreed, no automatic weapons in civilian hands. What next?

No one has any idea how many automatic weapons are in the USA.
No one has much of an idea who has them.
Gangs are unlikely to cooperate and disarm voluntarily.
Militias are definitely not going to cooperate and disarm voluntarily.
Actually, lots of people are going to fight to keep their guns. Others may just hide them and play dumb.
The police are not going to be happy about the battles they face as they try and seize guns.
The manufacturers I presume can still make such guns, but only for the military and police and to sell abroad.
What about smuggling, as all the guns that went to Mexico start to head back to the USA?

Does anyone think that it would be possible to remove automatic weapons from civilian hands? If so, how?

In the US fully automatic weapons ('machine guns') are heavily controlled through the acts of 1934, 1968 and 1986. About 120,000 are in private hands.
Such weapons have been used in the commission of three crimes of violence.

__________________As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

In California, only assault weapon owners and personal handgun
importers are required to register their weapons.214 Many strongly oppose
any sort of registration system. Some gun owners fervently believe that
registration is a precursor to firearms confiscation.215 They also fear that
permitting registration will allow the government to assume the role of “big
brother.”216 Some individuals so strongly opposed registration that they
purposefully do not register their weapons and play the odds that, given the
number of guns in California, they will not be caught.217 Nearly ninety
percent of the approximately 300,000 assault weapon owners in California
have not registered their weapons.218

Here's a breakdown by county for assault weapons registered pursuant to that statute:

130,338 weapons registered w/ the state, less than half of the low-end estimate used by Jacobs and Potter. California has a second assault weapons law that encompassed firearms deemed to be assault weapons by features. The state Bureau of Firearms has not disclosed how many firearms were registered pursuant to that statute, and we're now in a third registration period for the new law that was enacted to address "bullet button" assault rifles - no numbers released on that either.

Could well be that Australians didn't comply with their surrender law and aren't criminally inclined towards violence so they don't come to the attention of the authorities.

__________________"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

In California, only assault weapon owners and personal handgun
importers are required to register their weapons.214 Many strongly oppose
any sort of registration system. Some gun owners fervently believe that
registration is a precursor to firearms confiscation.215 They also fear that
permitting registration will allow the government to assume the role of “big
brother.”216 Some individuals so strongly opposed registration that they
purposefully do not register their weapons and play the odds that, given the
number of guns in California, they will not be caught.217 Nearly ninety
percent of the approximately 300,000 assault weapon owners in California
have not registered their weapons.218

Here's a breakdown by county for assault weapons registered pursuant to that statute:

130,338 weapons registered w/ the state, less than half of the low-end estimate used by Jacobs and Potter. California has a second assault weapons law that encompassed firearms deemed to be assault weapons by features. The state Bureau of Firearms has not disclosed how many firearms were registered pursuant to that statute, and we're now in a third registration period for the new law that was enacted to address "bullet button" assault rifles - no numbers released on that either.

Could well be that Australians didn't comply with their surrender law and aren't criminally inclined towards violence so they don't come to the attention of the authorities.

Seems reasonable to me.

Nessie, you now have two practical, real-world examples of the kind of policy you're talking about: Australia and California. Do these examples answer your questions about implementation and enforcement? I hope they do; after all they are real-world examples, not hypothetical ones.

The scenario you envision has actually played out in a western nation in recent memory. Why do you act like it's such a conundrum?

In Australia they knew who had the guns, how many there are, where to go and get them and those who had the guns are law abiding citizens.

In the USA they have no idea who has the guns, how many there are, where they are and many with the guns are not law abiding citizens, they are criminals, militia members, people who fear government tyranny.

Nessie, you now have two practical, real-world examples of the kind of policy you're talking about: Australia and California. Do these examples answer your questions about implementation and enforcement? I hope they do; after all they are real-world examples, not hypothetical ones.

The answer is because in no case in those real world examples, did the police have to figure out who had the guns, how many there were and face people who would not likely give up without a fight.

Why do think it is exactly the same for the police to call on and recover the now illegal firearm from;

- a person who has passed background checks and has never broken the law, for the firearm they know he has.

- a person who may or may not have that type of gun, with a criminal background, who lives with other gang members or in a militia compound, who has professed great opposition to the government.

- a 16 year old who is known to have a relevant gun, but hates the world, has mental heath problems, fantasises over Columbine and has suicidal tendencies.

- a Texan member of the NRA, who may have a relevant firearm, who has already shot and killed someone in self defence resulting in no charges against themself and who regards the 2nd Amendment as the prime safeguard of all his rights.

If you are going to rely on people handing over their guns voluntarily, which of the above will do so and which will not?

In the US fully automatic weapons ('machine guns') are heavily controlled through the acts of 1934, 1968 and 1986. About 120,000 are in private hands.
Such weapons have been used in the commission of three crimes of violence.

OK, use the AR-15 as an example of what I mean. How do you get them if they are made illegal?

The answer is because in no case in those real world examples, did the police have to figure out who had the guns, how many there were and face people who would not likely give up without a fight.

Why do think it is exactly the same for the police to call on and recover the now illegal firearm from;

- a person who has passed background checks and has never broken the law, for the firearm they know he has.

- a person who may or may not have that type of gun, with a criminal background, who lives with other gang members or in a militia compound, who has professed great opposition to the government.

- a 16 year old who is known to have a relevant gun, but hates the world, has mental heath problems, fantasises over Columbine and has suicidal tendencies.

- a Texan member of the NRA, who may have a relevant firearm, who has already shot and killed someone in self defence resulting in no charges against themself and who regards the 2nd Amendment as the prime safeguard of all his rights.

If you are going to rely on people handing over their guns voluntarily, which of the above will do so and which will not?

I don't see what the problem is. You're the one who thinks that banning guns requires going house to house and rounding them up. There are other approaches.

Also, you've mentioned people who own guns illegally today, under the current laws. Banning those guns doesn't make the confiscation problem any harder, for those people. If we don't need to go house to house rounding up all the illegal guns in the country today, I don't see why we would need to do it tomorrow after passing your ban.

Really, your proposal seems pretty unworkable on its face, for all sorts of reasons. Several people have suggested a much more practical approach, which you keep ignoring:

Amnesty period, compensation, and confiscating any guns discovered in the normal course of police duties thereafter.

Another comparison: Cocaine. Presumably it's illegal in the UK. And of course none of the dealers and users are registered with the police. How does the UK go about getting all the cocaine that people illegally possess?

Another comparison: Cocaine. Presumably it's illegal in the UK. And of course none of the dealers and users are registered with the police. How does the UK go about getting all the cocaine that people illegally possess?

I can't tell whether the analogy is accurate. Cocaine is manufactured elsewhere and used up when it's applied. Small amounts can be smuggled in easily.

I'd think that guns are somewhat harder to smuggle, but they last for a long time and there are many AR-15s already here. So the analogy doesn't seem to work too well, since the situations are quite different. Some differences suggest that banning guns is easier than banning cocaine, while others suggest the opposite.

I can't tell whether the analogy is accurate. Cocaine is manufactured elsewhere and used up when it's applied. Small amounts can be smuggled in easily.

I'd think that guns are somewhat harder to smuggle, but they last for a long time and there are many AR-15s already here. So the analogy doesn't seem to work too well, since the situations are quite different. Some differences suggest that banning guns is easier than banning cocaine, while others suggest the opposite.

I don't see what the problem is. You're the one who thinks that banning guns requires going house to house and rounding them up. There are other approaches.

Also, you've mentioned people who own guns illegally today, under the current laws. Banning those guns doesn't make the confiscation problem any harder, for those people. If we don't need to go house to house rounding up all the illegal guns in the country today, I don't see why we would need to do it tomorrow after passing your ban.

Really, your proposal seems pretty unworkable on its face, for all sorts of reasons. Several people have suggested a much more practical approach, which you keep ignoring:

Amnesty period, compensation, and confiscating any guns discovered in the normal course of police duties thereafter.

The proposal I have made is that seizure will not work. I agree that incentives to hand over guns is a less risky way, but again how many gangs, unhappy youths and die hard members of the NRA will hand over their guns, even for compensation?

Are illegally held guns not already confiscated when found during a normal course of police duty? I think they are and that is not having any effect.

I don't see what the problem is. You're the one who thinks that banning guns requires going house to house and rounding them up. There are other approaches.......

Nessie has an agenda. As a result of that agenda, ignoring the simple message .........buy-back, amnesty period, then confiscation of those guns found during the course of normal police work.......becomes a necessity. S/he will doubtless carry on pretending no-one has suggested it, or will straw-man it with variations no-one has suggested as in your quote. Were it to happen (our way) and prove successful, Nessie would be gutted.

__________________"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

The proposal I have made is that seizure will not work. I agree that incentives to hand over guns is a less risky way, but again how many gangs, unhappy youths and die hard members of the NRA will hand over their guns, even for compensation?

Speaking as a genuine Australian citizen, I'm going to say that you have to get people to want to turn in their guns. Here, it took only one massacre to do that.

__________________"This quote was taken out of context."
- Randall Munroe

Nessie has an agenda. As a result of that agenda, ignoring the simple message .........buy-back, amnesty period, then confiscation of those guns found during the course of normal police work.......becomes a necessity. S/he will doubtless carry on pretending no-one has suggested it, or will straw-man it with variations no-one has suggested as in your quote. Were it to happen (our way) and prove successful, Nessie would be gutted.

You are wrong. I have seen the suggestion of buy back etc. I wanted this discussion to be about how it would actually happen and how successful it would be.

People can make all the suggestions they want, suggestions then have to implemented and acted upon. You keep on dodging that issue.

I say that the evidence is there, that confiscation would not be possible.

I also doubt that enough people would sell back or hand in now illegal weapons to make much of a difference.

I would be delighted if a combined scheme as you suggest did work. I am suspicious that your refusal to show how it would actually work is because even you lack confidence in it.

Speaking as a genuine Australian citizen, I'm going to say that you have to get people to want to turn in their guns. Here, it took only one massacre to do that.

Which is why I am very pessimistic about any scheme being successful. Even after all the massacres, there is no sign that those who cause the most problems with guns, in particular the gang members and angry youths, let alone decent law abiding citizens are prepared to turn in their guns.

Ian Scott, a gun collector from New South Wales, Australia, provides further insight. “Curt phoned me up in 1998 and more or less summoned me over to see him. He was making up his will and told me he wanted to include me in it. About two weeks later I flew to Boise to stay with him for a little more than a week. He was on his own and after a few days I realized he was a lonely old man in this great big house full of guns that collectors would give their front teeth for and few family or friends would come near him.

Their friendship was cemented after Australia banned the ownership of most guns in the wake of a 1996 shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot. Ian could have received “fair market value” for his guns, but chose instead to ship one of his best guns, a Winchester Model 1897 trench gun, to Curtis as an outright gift. Curtis would later point to this gun on his wall in his display area and reveal that no one had ever done such an act of generosity before. It deeply touched him, maybe because it was so uncharacteristic of him, at least up until the time near his death.

Ian Scott was far from being the only Aussie that sent firearms here instead of surrendering them for destruction.

__________________"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

Amazing the differences between US and Canadian gun laws and attitudes.

The US regulated machineguns etc in 1934, up north they didn't feel the need to do so until the 1950's..

Firearms that were completely unavailable in the US in any form were legal for civilian sale in Canada w/o restrictions other than barrel length and overall length - Semi-auto only BAR's and FAL's and original Dutch manufactured AR-10's were a dime a dozen then.

__________________"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"What is believed to have been the first gun buyback program was in Baltimore in 1974. Gun homicides and assaults actually rose during the two-month program, and it was deemed a failure, though no reason for the crime rate increase was given.[8] Similar programs followed in other cities, including some cities that repeated their programs. However, no evaluation of such programs were published until 1994, after three researchers analyzed a 1992 buyback in Seattle, Washington. The study found that the "effect on decreasing violent crime and reducing firearm mortality is unknown."

"While the program, could be considered a success, collecting more than 700 guns, handing out almost $70,000 in gift cards and even netting a Stinger missile launcher tube (minus the missile),[23] the program also had a widely unanticipated effect from the local gun buying community. Hundreds of gun buyers showed up to the event seeking to offer cash for valuable antiques or functioning second hand firearms. The lack of any need for background check in transactions involving private firearms sales turned the city sponsored event into an open air gun bazaar."

The sheer volume of guns still in circulation and being manufactured and sold means buy backs are unlikely to have any effect.

It would work if anything was capable of convincing American gun enthusiasts that their passion for guns was unhealthy for society. Unfortunately it looks like no amount of murder and bloodshed will do that. I wonder if there is anything else that might.

__________________"This quote was taken out of context."
- Randall Munroe

You send a letter explaining that their property has been retroactively banned and offerring a small compensation for them voluntarily turning it in. Once you have a list of people who won't abide by the law, you send the cops.

**** that. If I purchased something legally and have never used it to harm any person or property, if it's to be seized by the government (punishing me for something someone else did, mind you) they better compensate me for every red cent I paid for it, or adjusted for inflation. Anything less is frankly robbery.

__________________"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

OK, use the AR-15 as an example of what I mean. How do you get them if they are made illegal?

Sorry but I don't know what it is that you are so terribly confused about.

If certain types of firearms are actually made illegal then the authorities would be empowered to arrest those who are in possession of such firearms and the authorities would also be able to physically seize such firearms.

Just like the authorities currently do with things such as illegal drugs or child porngraphy.

__________________08 JAN 2018 > Trump says that he is "Like, Really Smart" and that he is "a Very Stable Genius".
11 JAN 2018 > During an Oval Office meeting, Trump asks "“Why are we having all these people from ****hole countries come here?”"

Sorry but I don't know what it is that you are so terribly confused about.

If certain types of firearms are actually made illegal then the authorities would be empowered to arrest those who are in possession of such firearms and the authorities would also be able to physically seize such firearms.

Just like the authorities currently do with things such as illegal drugs or child porngraphy.

This. Nessie, what problem are you trying to solve, by starting this thread?

Sorry but I don't know what it is that you are so terribly confused about.

If certain types of firearms are actually made illegal then the authorities would be empowered to arrest those who are in possession of such firearms and the authorities would also be able to physically seize such firearms.

Just like the authorities currently do with things such as illegal drugs or child porngraphy.

And illegally possessed automatic weapons...

__________________I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 - I'll miss Tim.

Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy

ETA: And really, the terminology issue is a textbook example of how gun grabbers needlessly give up what little credibility they have. You can't change my mind if you make it so absolutely clear that you don't give a **** what I think.

Similarly, I'm sure that phrase will provide an incentive to engage with you on the part of those "gun grabbers".

......... If I purchased something legally and have never used it to harm any person or property, if it's to be seized by the government (punishing me for something someone else did, mind you) they better compensate me for every red cent I paid for it.....

__________________"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.